C.P.No.D-4529 of 2015

1. For Katcha Peshi

2. For hearing of CMA-12682/2015

29.02.2016

Mr. Sarfraz A. Akhund Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Shafiq Ahmed Leghari, State Counsel.

...................

Through instant petition, the petitioner has alleged harassment by the police at the instance of private respondents and submits that respondents may be directed not to illegally dispossessed the petitioner from subject-property i.e. Dilshad Manzil, situated at Khairpur.

Notices were issued, pursuant to which Mr. Abdul Basit Advocate has filed vakalatnama as well as objections/ comments on behalf of respondent No.7, wherein, the allegations, as contained in the instant petition, have been vehemently denied and it has been stated that the petitioner is in illegal occupation of subject-property, which belongs to respondent No.7, whereas, documents attached along with instant petition are bogus and forged documents. It has been categorically stated that no harassment whatsoever has been caused by the respondent No.7, whereas, on the contrary, the petitioner, in collusion with respondent No.8, after having managed forged documents have filed instant frivolous petition with mala fide intention to defame respondent No.7, who is Ex-Ruler of Khairpur State and belongs to Royal family of Mir’s of Khairpur State, and also to prevent him to take legal action against petitioner before Criminal/Civil Courts in accordance with law. Along with objections/comments documents of title in respect of subject-property in the form of Deh Form-II and PTL Certificate (WARDA) have been annexed by respondent No.7. Concerned police has also filed statement wherein, the allegations of harassment have been denied.

While confronted with hereinabove objection and the documents placed on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner is in possession of subject-property, he may not be dispossessed except in due process of law.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record furnished by them, which reflects that petitioner claims possession over subject-property on the basis of purported sale agreement executed in the year 1929 and 1997 in respect of subject-property, which is admittedly part of State, which belonged to his highness Mir Ali Nawaz Khan Talpur, Mir of Khairpur State, whereas, documents of title in respect of subject-property in the form of Deh Form-II as well as PTL Certificate (WARDA) have also been produced by respondent No.7. In the instant petition, nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner, except a notice dated 10.08.2015 issued by respondent No.7 and addressed to petitioner, which is available at page 17 as annexure “C”, which reflects that no harassment, whatsoever, has been caused by the private respondent No.7 or the police to the petitioner, as alleged in the memo of petition.

In view of hereinabove disputed facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any substance in the instant petition as the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be examined by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. Moreover, it appears to be a motivated petition, hence, the same is hereby dismissed. Before parting with the order, we may observe that respondent No.7 will be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings against the petitioner before the proper Court of jurisdiction/forum, including criminal and civil proceedings for the purpose of seeking redressal of his grievance, including recovery of possession of subject-property, however, strictly in accordance with law.

Petition, along with the listed application, stands disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE

JUDGE

N.M.